Let me cite an example I heard years ago about north and south California, folks were wanting to split them up into two states. One underlying reason I heard from a guy was - There are more people and bigger cities in the south and laws made by the state that affect them, and might be good for them, do not really apply to us. But because we are in the same state we must adopt those same laws.

One could extrapolate that to states, like Texas vs Montana.

The larger area we try to control, the more people we try to control, the more we are forcing people to act and be the same way, and diversity either dies off or becomes a flame point of debate.

I think religion might be a slight indication of this as well, consider nativity scenes or school songs. When I was in elementary school most all the people that went there were christians. We had one jewish kid. To balance out things and be fair we celebrated and learned about Hannukah, we also sang songs at our christmas play of such nature, and he took off days for the holidays his faith observed. We celebrated diversity and tried to be inclusive. Now a days you cannot do those things in school, because some people don't like that part of diversity (ie, religious). Laws get bandied about, schools get sued, lawyers get money, and some parts of people's lives are not welcomed as part of a learning environment (out of fear it may make someone uncomfortable). This is how such things are seen - and so little towns see the big towns as stripping away their heritage and enforcing a uniform standard.

The big towns see it as, this is better for all including you (which goes back to the north/south thing in California I was mentioning earlier). So people see their freedoms, or way of life, traditions, etc, as vanishing in favor of a borgish existence.

A national ID may fit into this schema as well. The more 'national' things become, the less diverse they become and the ideas of one group in society start to dominate the other. Christians may become a majority power and seek to limit things we think should not be limited, like gay marriage, abortions, etc ----

The cure is - less power in the few to control the many, and more power to the many who get better representation in their district, city, state, etc.

There will be some things some don't like, but at least they would have more of a voice for change and the option to move to somewhere else more to their liking. The more it all becomes the same, the less choices we have in our limited lifetimes.

Just my 2 cents. (And no, I don't think extreme answers are the answer, no all or nothing kind of thing, balance though needs kept, and I think that is eroding).

6. Yes, but you also have to take into consideration cultural/race issues too

Edited on Tue Aug-22-06 10:40 PM by Selatius

The larger a population, the more difficult it becomes to govern. With a country of 300,000,000, it would be much more difficult to govern than a country with only 25,000,000 or 50,000,000; however, the difficulties can be compounded if there are cultural differences and racial differences among the people. If people cannot agree on fundamental cultural/racial issues, then you will have a nation that is more inherently stable than one that is more culturally and racially homogenous. You will get a country that is closer to Iraq or Lebanon than any country like Spain or Sweden.

My best advice is to dissolve the US in a peaceful manner and allow several regions to form into their own independent nations. You would need at least five regions representing the former lands of the US.

I would predict that if the US is not allowed to dissolve peacefully, there will be another civil war within the next 125 years.

... especially in idiotic conversations where people say things like "But Sweden can do it! Why can't we?".

I recall looking up info on serious people studying such an issue seriously a few years ago, and found some folks at Stanford. I think my google terms were something "institution design" with some others that I can't quite recall...

But the scaling effects on govts would be an excellent topic for someone to seriously study - rather than jump to offhand conclusions about - imo.

The difference is that Sweden's population is infinitely smaller than the US population. It is not only more culturally homogeneous; it also tends to be more racially homogeneous.

In fact, they're having problems integrating North Africans and Arabs into their society at present; they are ending up in disproportionate numbers in their prisons. Actually, this tends to be a problem across a good deal of Western Europe. It seems the more multicultural the nation becomes, the more fragmented the nation becomes and the greater likelihood of social programs collapsing, as witnessed with the spectacular riots in France over issues of lack of opportunity and discrimination with respect to hiring practices despite the fact that France has universal health care, a publicly subsidized college education system, and generous unemployment/labor benefits.

Sweden's form of government is also radically different than the US with many viewpoints in government, not just two.

So yes, comparisons can be made between the US and, say, Sweden, but diligence must be paid to the differences between the two as well in order to draw any meaningful relationship between the two.

The different regions of this country don't even agree on fundamental cultural issues anymore, and I'm asking myself if it ever did at all. I'm trying to find a period where this country hasn't been divided over a major issue, and I can't think of any significant period of US history where that has held true outside of war, and if this country only unites in the face of a grave threat, then that's pretty sad commentary on the nation as a whole if it cannot even find peace with itself when its sons are not dying in war.

to other parts of the country, there is an intrinsic conflict of interest that probably can't be resolved in a democracy. Until production and consumption are both more evenly distributed, we will have pockets of the "American dream" in a country that otherwise closely resembles any empire.

make the people more aware of global events? In Europe, the media reports more on what goes on outside of its own country, partially because the countries are smaller and other countries aren't that far away. In America, you can travel so far and still be in your own nation, and that might influence people to think less about the rest of the world. Seems like smaller countries could improve that.

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.